Strategic Coherence and Full-Spectrum Capability
A foundational premise of strategic theory holds that while the instruments of war evolve, the underlying logic of conflict persists. The capacity to project force, to control territory, and to impose one’s will through coercion remains central to the functioning of political power—even in a context increasingly shaped by digital infrastructures, autonomous systems, and space-based platforms. Within this evolving technological landscape, the mere addition of new domains—such as cyber or space—cannot compensate for the erosion or neglect of conventional capabilities. Strategic relevance requires an integrated, full-spectrum posture.
Deterrence, in this framework, does not derive from excellence in isolated technological areas, but from the coherent availability of interoperable capabilities across all operational domains: land, sea, air, cyber, and space. Political credibility depends on the ability to act across this spectrum if and when necessary. In its absence, strategic autonomy risks becoming a rhetorical aspiration rather than a functional capacity.
Properly understood, strategic autonomy does not equate to isolation or autarky. It signifies the capacity to take action—unilaterally or in coalition—when vital interests are at stake. That action can range from classical deterrence, denial operations, and compellence to the disruption of adversarial capabilities or, in extreme cases, the pursuit of political or military regime change. Each of these scenarios presupposes not only political will but also the institutional, operational, and technological means to execute decisions with speed, credibility, and resilience.
From a systems perspective, the development of these means is shaped not by market dynamics alone, but by doctrinal choices, institutional mechanisms, and policy instruments. Strategic objectives—such as enhancing autonomy, mitigating technological dependencies, or ensuring superiority in contested domains—are translated into public roadmaps, capability plans, regulatory frameworks, and funding instruments. The coherence and stability of this translation process determine the industrial and technological trajectory of the European defence landscape.
In this context, the relevance of a company or a technological solution cannot be measured solely by its commercial potential or market position. Relevance is institutional before it is financial. A firm becomes strategically significant only to the extent that it contributes—directly or indirectly—to solving a defence problem that has been recognised as such by national or supranational institutions. Eligibility for funding, alignment with capability plans, compliance with export controls, and contribution to strategic goals all serve as filters through which innovation is assessed.
This perspective challenges conventional assumptions about investment in the defence sector. Capital allocation in this field must operate within a different set of parameters, governed not primarily by market competition but by strategic necessity and institutional demand. Procurement frameworks, security regulations, and alliance commitments all play a role in shaping the environment within which private actors operate.
The analytical priority, therefore, lies in understanding how top-down strategic imperatives intersect with bottom-up innovation. Mapping this structural alignment reveals not only which technologies are being developed, but also why they matter, to whom, and under what conditions they are likely to be adopted. It is through this lens that the European defence economy can be understood—not as a collection of isolated firms, but as an evolving system governed by strategic intent, institutional design, and geopolitical constraint.